The green book

Muammar Al Qathafi

The Solution of the Problem of

Democracy

The Authority of the People*

The Solution of the

Economic Problem

Socialism

hi

The Social Basis

of the Third Universal Theory

DT 236 0244413 1976
MAIN

THE GENIiRAL LIBRARIES
THE UNIVERSITY

Ol TEXAS A'l AUSTIN

PR! SBN i in BY
People* s Committee, Libya

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
THE GENERAL LIBRARIES

This Item is Due on the Latest Date Stamped

DUE

!■ "'■

AUG 26 '92
AUG 26 ?99?

O AUG 2 6 1992 pcl

MAR031^94

21

Ri.T'O MAY 2 1994

SEP l M$m* m «.

PCL Cpce 8 11888.
IJAN 1 3 2003

RETURNED

£

M0V21BM«S- ET ' DlJhL;071994p CL

PCL

RET'D PCL

P( &0CT24"-

PCL

FEB 1 3 2003

M

The thinker Muammar Qathafi does not present his thought
for simple amusement or pleasure. Nor is it for those
who regard ideas as puzzles for the entertainment of empty-
minded people standing on the margin of life.

Qathafi's ideas interpret life as it erupts from the heart
of the tormented, the oppressed, the deprived and the grief-
stricken. It flows from the ever-developing and conflicting
reality in search of whatever is best and most beautiful.

Part One of The Green Book heralded the start of the era
of the Jamahiriyat (state of the masses) .
The Green Book, Part II concentrates on finding an ultimate
solution to the world's economic problems. For many years,
we have all been torn by conflicting kinds of theories, whether
of liberalism, communism or capitalism.

After directing his attention to purely political matters as he
did in Part I of The Green Book Colonel Muammar Al-
Qathafi, the Leader of the Great 1st of September Revolution,
now offers his conclusions on the way in which the world's
economic problems can be solved.

The author preaches the emancipation of servants in a
social revolution against need which has made them the serfs
of the twentieth century.

He emphasises the necessity for the partnership of all
workers in the means of production, liberating them finally
from exploitation.

Part Three of The Green Book launches the social
revolution. It presents the genuine interpretation of history,
the solution of man's struggle in life and the unsolved problem
of man and woman. Equally it tackles the problem of the
minorities and the blacks in order to lay down the sound
principles of social life for all mankind.

The living philosophy is inseparable from life itself and
erupts from its essence. It is the philosophy of Muammar Qathafi.

— The Publisher

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTI

The Solution of the Problem of

Democracy

The Authority of the People'

PART II

The Solution of the

Economic Problem

Socialism

PART III

The Social Basis

of the Third Universal Theory

Muammar Al Qathafi

THE GREEN BOOK

Part One

The Solution of the
Problem of

Democracy

The Authority of
the People'

THE INSTRUMENT OF
GOVERNING

'The Instrument of Governing is the
prime political problem which faces hu-
man communities.'

Even the conflict within the family is,
often, the result of this problem.

'This problem has become serious since
the emergence of modern societies.'

Peoples, nowadays, face this persistent
problem and communities suffer from
various risks and grave consequences to
which it leads. They have not yet suc-
ceeded in solving it finally and democra-
tically.

The GREEN BOOK presents the final
solution to the problem of the instrument
of governing.

All political systems in the world today
are the product of the struggle for power
between instruments of governing. The
struggle may be peaceful or armed, such
as the conflict of classes, sects, tribes,
parties or individuals. The result is al-
ways the victory of an instrument of
governing — be it an individual, group,
party or class and the defeat of the people,
i.e. the defeat of genuine democracy.

Political struggle that results in the
victory of a candidate with 51 per cent of
the votes leads to a dictatorial governing
body disguised as a false democracy, since
49 per cent of the electorate is rided by an
instrument of governing they did not vote
for, but had imposed upon them. This is
dictatorship. Besides, this political con-
flict may produce a governing body that
represents only a minority, for when votes
are distributed among several candidates,
one of them polls more than any other
candidate. But if the votes polled by those
ivho received less are added up, they can
constitute an overwhelming majority.
However, the candidate with fewer votes
wins and his success is regarded as legiti-
mate and democratic! In actual fact,
dictatorship is established under the cover
of false democracy. This is the reality of
the political systems prevailing in the
world today. They are dictatorial systems
and it seems clear that they falsify
genuine democracy.

PARLIAMENTS

Parliaments are the backbone of
traditional democracy as it exists
today. A parliament is a misrepre-
sentation of the people and par-
liamentary governments are a mis-
leading solution to the problem of
democracy. A parliament is origin-
ally founded to represent the peo-
ple, but this in itself, is undemocra-
tic as democracy means the au-
thority of the people and not an
authority acting on their behalf.
The mere existence of a parliament
means the absence of the people,
but true democracy exists only
through the participation of the
people, not through the activity of
their representatives. Parliaments
have been a legal barrier between
the peoples and the exercise of
authority, excluding masses from
power while usurping sovereignty
in their place. Peoples are left with
only false external appearance of
democracy manifested in long

No

representation
in lieu of the
people

Representation
is a denial of
participation

Representation

is a falsification

of democracy

queues to cast their votes in the
ballot boxes.

To lay bare the character of the
parliament, we have to look to the
origin of such a parliament. The
parliament is either elected from
constituencies or a party or a coali-
tion of parties, or is formed by
some method of appointment. But
all these procedures are undemo-
cratic, for dividing the population
into constituencies means that one
member of parliament represents
thousands, hundreds of thousands
or millions of people, depending on
the size of population. It also means
that the member keeps no popular
organisational link with the elec-
tors since he, like other members,
is looked upon as a representative
of the whole people. This is what
the prevailing traditional democra-
cy requires. The masses, therefore,
are completely isolated from the
representative and he, in turn, is
totally separated from them. For
immediately after winning their
votes he himself usurps their

sovereignty and acts instead of
them. The prevailing traditional
democracy endows the member of a
parliament with a sacredness and
immunity denied to other individual
members of the people. That means
that parliaments have become a
means of plundering and usurping
the peoples' authority. Hence the
people have the right to struggle,
through the popular revolution, to
destroy instruments which usurp
democracy and sovereignty and
take them away from the masses.
They also have the right to utter the
new principle, no representation in
lieu of the people. If, however, the
parliament emerges from a party as
a result of winning an election, it is a
parliament of the party and not of
the people. It represents the party
and not the people, and the executive
power assigned by the parliament is
that of the winning party and not of
the people. The same is true of the
parliament in which each party
holds a number of seats. For the
members of the parliament repre-

sent their party and not the people,
and the power established by such a
coalition is the power of the com-
bined parties and not of the people.
Under such systems the people are
victims, fooled and exploited by poli-
tical bodies. The people stand silent-
ly in long queues to cast their votes
in the ballot boxes in the same way
as they throw other papers into the
dustbin. This is the traditional demo-
cracy prevalent in the whole world,
whether the system is one-party,
two-party, multi-party or non-
party. Thus it becomes clear that
representation is fraud. Assemblies
formed by a method of appointment
or hereditary succession do not fall
under any form of democracy.
Moreover, since the system of
elected parliaments is based on
propaganda to win votes, it is a
demagogic system in the real sense
of the word, and votes can be bought
and falsified. Poor people fail to
compete in the election campaign
and it is always the rich — and only
the rich — who come out victorious.

8

Philosophers, thinkers and writers
advocated the theory of represen-
tative government at a time when
the peoples, without realising it,
were driven like sheep by kings,
sultans and conquerors. The ulti-
mate aspiration of the people of
those times was to have someone to
represent them before such rulers.
Even that aspiration was nullified.
Peoples went through long and bit-
ter struggles to attain what they
aspired to. After the successful
establishment of the era of the
republics and the beginning of the
era of the masses, it is unreason-
able that democracy should mean
the electing of only a few represen-
tatives to act on behalf of great
masses. This is an obsolete theory
and an outdated experience. The
whole authority must be the peoples.
The most tyrannical dictatorships
the world has known have existed
under the shadow of parliaments.

9

The party

system aborts

democracy

To make a

party you

split society

THE PARTY

The party is the contemporary
dictatorship. It is the modern dicta-
torial instrument of governing. The
party is the rule of a part over the
whole. It is the latest dictatorial
instrument. As the party is not indi-
vidual, it exercises a sham democra-
cy through establishing parliaments
and committees and through the
propaganda of its members. The
party is not a democratic instrument
at all because it is composed of
people who have common interests,
a common outlook or a common
culture; or who belong to the same
locality or have the same belief.
They form a party to achieve their
ends, impose their outlook or extend
the hold of their belief on the society
as a whole. A party's aim is to
achieve power under the pretext of
carrying out its programme. And
yet, democratically, none of these
parties should govern the whole peo-

10

pie because of the diversity of in-
terests, ideas, temperaments, locali-
ties and beliefs, which constitute the
people's identity. The party is a
dictatorial instrument of governing
that enables those with one outlook
and a common interest to rule the
people as a whole. Compared with
the people, the party is a minority.
The purpose of forming a party is
to create an instrument to rule the
people; namely to rule over non-
members of the party. For the party
is, fundamentally, based on an arbit-
rary authoritarian theory . . . i.e.
the domination of the members of
the party over the rest of individual
members of the people. The party
presupposes that its accession to
power is the way to attain its ends,
assuming that its objectives are the
objectives of the people. That is the
theory of the justification of party
dictatorship, which is the basis for
any dictatorship. No matter how
many parties there are, the theory
remains one and the same. But the
existence of many parties escalates

11

the struggle for power and this re-
sults in the destruction of any
achievements of the people and of
any socially beneficial plans. Such
destruction is seized upon by the
opposition party as a justification to
undermine the position of the ruling
party so that it may take over from
them. The parties in their struggle
resort, if not to arms, which rarely
happens, then to denouncing and
stultifying the actions of each other.
This is a battle which is inevitably
waged at the expense of the higher
and vital interests of the society.
Some, if not all, of those higher
interests will be victims of the power
struggle of instruments of gov-
erning. For the destruction of those
interests supports the opposition
party or parties in their argument
against the ruling party. The opposi-
tion party, as an instrument of gov-
erning, has to oust the ruling body in
order to have access to authority. To
prove the unfitness of the instrument
of governing, the opposition party
has to destroy its achievements and

12

to cast doubt on its plans, even if
those plans are beneficial to the
society. Consequently the interests
and programmes of the society be-
come victims of the parties' struggle
for power. Such struggle is, there-
fore, politically, socially and econo-
mically destructive to the society,
despite the fact that it creates poli-
tical activity. Besides, the struggle
results in the victory of another
instrument of governing, i.e., the fall
of one party and the rise of another.
But it is a defeat for the people, a
defeat for democracy. Furthermore,
parties can be bought or bribed
either from inside or outside.

Originally, the party is formed to
represent the people. Then the lead-
ing group of the party represents its
members and the supreme leader of
the party represents the leading
group. It becomes clear that the
party game is a deceitful farce
based on a sham form of democracy
which has a selfish content based on

13

manoeuvres, tricks and political
games. All these emphasise that the
party-system is a dictatorial, yet
modern, instrument. The party sys-
tem is an overt, not a covert, dicta-
torship. The world has not yet pas-
sed beyond it and it is rightly called
'the dictatorship of the modern age'.
The parliament of the winning
party is indeed a parliament of the
party, as the executive power
assigned by this parliament is the
power of the party over the people.
Party power, which is supposed to
be for the good of the whole people,
is actually a bitter enemy of a part of
the people, namely the opposition
party or parties and their suppor-
ters. So the opposition is not a popu-
lar check on the ruling party, but is
itself seeking a chance to replace the
ruling party. According to modern
democracy, the legal check on the
ruling party is the parliament, the
majority of whose members are
from that ruling party. That is to
say, checking is in the hands of the
ruling party and rule is in the hands

14

of the checking party. Thus become
clear the deceptiveness, falsity and
invalidity of the political theories
dominant in the world today, from
which contemporary traditional
democracy emerges.

The party is only a part of the
people, but the sovereignty of the
people is indivisible.

The party governs on behalf of the
people, but the principle is no repre-
sentation in lieu of the people.

The party system is the modern
tribal and sectarian system. The
society governed by one party is
exactly like that which is governed
by one tribe or one sect. The party,
as stated above, represents the out-
look of a certain group of people, or
the interests of one group of the
society, or one belief or one locality.
Such a party must be a minority
compared to the whole people just as
the tribe and the sect are. The

15

minority has common interests or a
sectarian belief. From such in-
terests or belief, the common out-
look is formed. Only blood-
relationship distinguishes a tribe
from a party and even at the founda-
tion of a party there may be blood-
relationship. There is no difference
between party struggles and tribal
or sectarian struggles for power.
And if tribal and sectarian rule is
politically rejected and disavowed,
then the party system must similar-
ly be rejected and disavowed. Both
of them tread the same path and
lead to the same end. The negative
and destructive effect on the society
of the tribal and sectarian struggles
is identical to the negative and des-
tructive effect of the party struggle.

16

CLASS

The class political system is the
same as the party, the tribal, or
sectarian system, i.e. a class domin-
ates the society in the same way that
a party, tribe or sect does. The class,
like the party, sect and tribe, is a
group of people from the society
who share common interests. Com-
mon interests arise from the exist-
ence of a group of people bound
together by blood-relationship, be-
lief, culture, locality or standard of
living. Also class, party, sect and
tribe emerge from similar factors
leading to similar results, i.e. they
emerge because blood-relationship,
belief, standard of living, culture
and locality create a common out-
look to achieve a common end. Thus
emerges the social structure in the
forms of class, party, tribe or sect
that eventually becomes a political
conception directed toward realising
the outlook and ends of that group.

17

In all cases the people are neither
the class, the party, the tribe nor the
sect; these are no more than a part
of the people and constitute a minor-
ity. If a class, party, tribe or sect
dominates a society, the whole sys-
tem becomes a dictatorship. Howev-
er, a class or tribal coalition is better
than a party coalition because the
people consist originally of a group
of tribes. One seldom finds people
who do not belong to a tribe, and all
people belong to a certain class. But
no party or parties embrace all the
people and therefore the party or
party coalition represents a minor-
ity compared to the masses outside
its membership. Under genuine
democracy there is no excuse for
one class to crush other classes for
its own benefit, no excuse for one
party to crush other parties for its
own interests, no excuse for one
tribe to crush other tribes for its own
benefit and no excuse for one sect to
crush other sects for its own in-
terests.
To allow such actions means aban-

18

doning the logic of democracy and
resorting to the logic of force. Such
an action is dictatorial, because it is
not in the interest of the whole socie-
ty, which does not consist of only one
class or tribe or sect or the members
of one party. There is no justification
for such an action. The dictatorial
justification is that the society is
actually made up of various parts,
and one of the parts undertakes the
liquidation of other parts in order to
stand solely in power. This action is
then not in the interest of the whole
society, but in the interest of a
certain class, tribe, sect or party,
i.e., it is in the interest of those who
replace the society. The action of
liquidation is originally directed
against the members of the society
who do not belong to the party, the
class, the tribe or the sect which
undertakes the liquidation.

The society torn apart by party
struggles is similar to one torn by
tribal and sectarian struggles.

19

The party that is formed in the
name of a class automatically be-
comes a substitute for that class and
continues until it becomes a replace-
ment for the class hostile to it.

Any class which becomes heir to a
society, inherits, at the same time,
its characteristics. That is to say
that if the working class crushes all
other classes, for instance, it becom-
es heir of the society, that is, it
becomes the material and social
base of the society. The heir bears
the traits of the one he inherits from,
though they may not be evident at
once. As time passes, attributes of
other eliminated classes emerge in
the very ranks of the working class.
And the possessors of those charac-
teristics take the attitudes and
points of view appropriate to their
characteristics. Thus the working
class turns out to be a separate
society, showing the same contra-
dictions as the old society. The mate-
rial and moral standards of the
members of the society are diverse
at first but then there emerge the

factions that automatically develop
into classes like those which had
been eliminated. Thus the struggle
for domination of the society starts
again. Each group of people, then
each faction and finally each new
class, tries to become the instru-
ment of governing.

The material base of the society is
not stable because it has a social
aspect. The instrument of governing
of the single material base of the
society will, perhaps, be stable for
some time, but it will pass away as
soon as new material and social
standards emerge out of the same
single material base. Any society
with class conflict was in the past a
one-class society but, due to inevit-
able evolution, the conflicting clas-
ses emerged from that one class.

The class that expropriates the
possessions of others in order to
maintain the instrument of gov-
erning for its own interests will find
that material possessions have

20

21

_L

brought within that class what mate-
rial possessions usually bring about
within the society as a whole.

In short, attempts to unify the
material base of the society to solve
the problem of government or to put
an end to the struggle in favour of
party, class, sect or tribe, have
failed, such as the efforts to satisfy
the masses through the election of
representatives or by organising
plebiscites to discover their views.
To go on with these efforts has
become a waste of time and a mock-
ery of the people.

22

PLEBISCITES

Plebiscites are a fraud against
democracy. Those who say 'yes' and
those who say 'no' do not, in fact,
express their will. They have been
silenced through the conception of
modern democracy. They have been
allowed to utter only one word:
either 'yes' or 'no'. This is the most
cruel and oppressive dictatorial sys-
tem. He who says 'no' should give
reasons for his answer. He should,
explain why he did not say 'yes'.
And he who says 'yes' should give
reasons for approval and why he did
not say 'no'. Everyone should make
clear what he wants and the reasons
for his approval or rejection.

What road, then, must human
groups take to get rid, once and for
all, of the tyrannical and dictatorial
ages?

Since the intricate problem in the
case of democracy is the instrument
of governing, expressed by conflicts

23

The fallacy of
a 'Yes' or 'No !
Plebiscite

of classes, parties and individuals;
and since the electoral and plebis-
cite methods were invented to cover
the failure of those unsuccessful ex-
periments to solve this problem,
the solution lies in finding an instru-
ment of governing other than these
which are subject to conflict and
which represent only one side of the
society. That is to say, an instru-
ment of governing which is not a
party, a class, a sect or a tribe, but
an instrument of governing which is
the people as a whole. It neither
represents the people nor speaks in
their name.

No representation in lieu of the
people and representation is fraud. If
that instrument can be brought into
being the problem will be solved,
popular democracy will be realised,
mankind will have put an end to
tyrannical eras and dictatorial sys-
tems, and the authority of the people
will have taken their place.

The Green Book presents the

24

solution to the problem of the instru-
ment of governing. It indicates for
the people the way to pass from the
eras of dictatorship to the eras of
genuine democracy.

This new theory is based on the
authority of the people, without rep-
resentation or deputation. It realises
direct democracy in an orderly and
effective form. It differs from the
older attempt at direct democracy,
which could not be applied in prac-
tice and which was frivolous be-
cause it lacked popular organisation
on the lower levels.

25

No democracy

without

popular

congresses

POPULAR CONGRESSES

AND PEOPLE'S

COMMITTEES

Popular congresses are the only
means to achieve popular democra-
cy. Any system of government other
than popular congresses is undemo-
cratic. All the prevailing systems of
government in the world today are
undemocratic, unless they adopt this
method. Popular congresses are the
end of the journey of the masses'
movement in its quest for demo-
cracy.

Popular congresses and people's
committees are the final fruit of the
people's struggle for democracy.
Popular congresses and people's
committees are not creations of the
imagination so much as they are the
product of human thought which has
absorbed all human experiments to
achieve democracy. Direct demo-
cracy is the ideal method, which, if
realised in practice, is indisputable

26

THE AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE

KEY:

General Secretariat of the General People's Congress

General People's Committee

Secretariat of the Congress

People's Committee of Different Executive Sectors
(Agriculture, Education, Health, Housing, etc.)

Syndicate or Association or Union

and noncontroversial. The nations
departed from direct democracy be-
cause, however small a people
might be, it was impossible to gather
them all together at one time in
order to discuss, study and decide on
their policy. Direct democracy re-
mained an Utopian idea far from
reality. It has been replaced by
various theories of government such
as representative assemblies, par-
ties, coalitions, and plebiscites. All
led to the isolation of the people from
political activity and to the plunder-
ing of the sovereignty of the people
and the assumption of their author-
ity by the successive and conflicting
instruments of governing beginning
with the individual, on through the
class, the sect, the tribe, the parlia-
ment and the party.

The Green Book announces to the
people the happy discovery of the
way to direct democracy, in a prac-
tical form. Since no two intelligent
people can dispute the fact that
direct democracy is the ideal — but
its method has been impossible to

28

apply — and since this Third Univer-
sal Theory provides us with a realis-
tic experiment in direct democracy,
the problem of democracy in the
world is finally solved. All that the
masses need do now is to struggle to
put an end to all forms of dictatorial
rule in the world today, to all forms
of what is falsely called democracy
— from parliaments to the sect, the
tribe, the class and to the one-party,
the two-party and the multi-party
systems.

Democracy has but one method
and one theory. The disparity and
dissimilarity of the systems claim-
ing to be democratic is evidence that
they are not democratic in fact. The
people's authority has only one face
and it can be realised only by one
method, namely, popular congres-
ses and people's committees. No
democracy without popular congres-
ses and committees everywhere.

First, the people are divided into

29

basic popular congresses. Each
basic popular congress chooses its
secretariat. The secretariats
together form popular congresses,
which are other than the basic ones.
Then the masses of those basic popu-
lar congresses choose administra-
tive people's committees to replace
government administration. Thus
all public utilities are run by peo-
ple's committees which will be re-
sponsible to the basic popular con-
gresses and these dictate the policy
to be followed by the people's com-
mittees and supervise its execution.
Thus, both the administration and
the supervision become popular and
the outdated definition of democracy
— Democracy is the su^ervisimiolthe
f government by the people — comes to
an end. It will be replaced by the\
right definition Democracy is the su-\
pervision of the people by the people.

All citizens who are members of
those popular congresses belong,
professionally and functionally, to
categories. They have, therefore, to

30

establish their own unions and syndi-
cates in addition to being, as
citizens, members of the basic popu-
lar congresses or the people's com-
mittees. Subjects discussed by basic
popular congresses or the people's
committees, syndicates and unions,
will take their final shape in the
General People's Congress, where
the secretariats of popular congres-
ses, people's committees, syndi-
cates and unions meet. What is
drafted by the General People's Con-
gress, which meets annually or
periodically, will, in turn, be submit-
ted to popular congresses, people's
committees, syndicates and unions.
The people's committees, responsi-
ble to the basic popular congresses
will, then, start executive action.
The General People's Congress is
not a gathering of members or ordin-
ary persons as is the case with
parliaments. It is a gathering of the
basic popular congresses, the peo-
ple's committees, the unions, the
syndicates and all professional asso-
ciations.

31

In this way, the problem of the
instrument of governing is, as a
matter of fact, solved and dictatorial
instruments will disappear. The peo-
ple are the instrument of governing
and the problem of democracy in the
world is completely solved.

32

THE LA W OF SOCIETY

Law is the other problem parallel
to the problem of the instrument of
governing. It has not yet been solved
in the modern age although it has
been solved at certain periods of
history.

It is invalid and undemocratic for
a committee or a parliament to be
entitled to draft the law for the
society. It is also invalid and un-
democratic for an individual, a com-
mittee or a parliament to amend or
abrogate the law of the society.

What, then, is the law of the socie-
ty? Who drafts it and what is its
importance to democracy?

The natural law of any society is
either tradition (custom) or religion.
Any other attempt to draft law for
any society, outside these two
sources, is invalid and illogical. Con-
stitutions are not the law of the
society. A constitution is a basic

33

man-made law. That basic man-
made law should have a source for
its justification. The problem of free-
dom in the modern age is that consti-
tutions have become the law of soci-
ety, and constitutions are based on
nothing other than the views of the
instruments of the dictatorial rule
prevailing in the world, ranging
from the individual to the party. The
proof of this is that there is a differ-
ence between constitutions although
man's freedom is the same. The
reason for the difference is the dis-
parity in the conceptions of the in-
struments of governing. This is the
point where freedom is vulnerable in
the systems of the contemporary
world. The method by which the
instruments of governing seek to
dominate the peoples is established
in the constitution and the people are
compelled to accept it under the
force of laws derived from that con-
stitution, which is itself the product
of the temperament and outlook of
the instrument of governing.
The law of the dictatorial instru-

34

ments of governing has replaced
natural law. Because man-made law
has replaced natural law, standards
are lost. Man is the same every-
where. His physical constitution is
the same and so is his instinct. For
this reason natural law became a
logical law for man as one and the
same. Then the constitutions, which
are man-made laws, began to look at
man as not one and the same. They
have no justification for that concep-
tion other than the will of instru-
ments of governing — the individual,
the parliament, the tribe or the par-
ty — to dominate the peoples. So we
see that constitutions are usually
changed when the instruments of
governing change. This proves that
the constitution is the product of the
temperament of the instruments of
governing and exists to serve their
interests. It is not natural law. This
is the impending danger to freedom
latent wherever the genuine law of
human society is absent and is re-
placed by man-made laws designed
by the instrument of governing to

35

rule the masses. Properly the
method of government should be in
accordance with the laws of society,
not vice versa.

Therefore, the law of the society is
not subject to drafting and codifica-
tion. The significance of law lies in
the JacUhat i t is the decisive factor
which distinguishes between the
true and false, the right and the
wrong, and the individuals' rights
and duties. Freedom is threatened
unless society has a sacred law
based on stable rules which are not
subject to change or substitution by
any instrument of governing. On the
contrary, it is incumbent upon the
instrument of governing to abide by
the law of society. Nevertheless,
peoples throughout the world are
now being ruled by man-made laws
that are liable to change and abroga-
tion because of the struggle for pow-
er between instruments of gov-
erning. Plebiscites on constitutions
are not enough because plebiscites
in themselves are a sham democra-
cy, permitting only yes or no. Under

man-made laws, peoples are com-
pelled to accept plebiscites. A plebis-
cite on a constitution does not mean
that it is the law of society; it means
that it is only a constitution, or that
'thing' subject to plebiscite, nothing
else.

The law of the society is an eternal
human heritage that is not the pos-
session of the living only. Hence, the
drafting of a constitution and hold-
ing a plebiscite by present voters are
farcical.

Encyclopedias of man-made laws
derived from man-made constitu-
tions are full of material penalties
against man while traditional law
seldom has these penalties. Tradi-
tional law imposes moral, not mate-
rial penalties, that are appropriate
for man. Religion embraces and
absorbs tradition. Most material
penalties in religion are postponed
until the Day of Judgement. The
major part of its rules are exhorta-
tions, instructions and answers to

36

37

questions. This law shows proper
respect to man. Religion does not
acknowledge temporal penalties, ex-
cept in extreme cases where these
are necessary to protect society.

Religion embraces tradition,
which is an expression of the natural
life of the peoples. Thus, religion,
embracing tradition, is an affirma-
tion of natural law. Non-religious,
non-traditional laws are invented by
one man for use against another?
Therefore they are invalid because
they are not built upon the natural
source of tradition and religion.

38

WHO SUPERVISES THE
CONDUCT OF SOCIETY?

The question that arises is: who
preserves the society from any de-
viation from the law? Democratical-
ly, there is no group whatever that
can claim the right of representative
supervision over the society. 'Society
is its own supervisor/ Any preten-
sion by any individual or group that
it is responsible for law is dictator-
ship. Democracy means the respon-
sibility of the whole society, and
supervision should be carried out by
the whole society. That is democra-
cy and its proper implementation is
through the democratic instrument
of governing, resulting from the
organization of society itself in basic
popular congresses and from the
people's rule through the popular
congresses and the General People's
Congress (National Congress) in
which come together the popular

39

congresses, administrative people's
committees, unions, syndicates and
all other professional organizations.
According to this theory, the people
are the instrument of governing and
in this case they are their own super-
visor. In this way self-supervision of
the society over its law is realized.

HOW DOES SOCIETY
READJUST ITS

DIRECTION IN CASE

OF DEVIATION

FROM ITS LAW?

If an instrument of governing is
dictatorial, as in political systems in
the world today, the society's vigi-
lance towards deviation from law
will have only one way to gain read-
justment. That is violence, which
means revolution against the instru-
ment of governing. This violence or
revolution, even if it is an expression
of the feeling of the society against
deviation, is not carried out by the
whole society. It is undertaken only
by those who have the initiative and
boldness to proclaim the will of the
society. However, this approach is
the way to dictatorship, for this
revolutionary initiative increases
the opportunity for an instrument of
governing, representative of the
people, to arise. This means that the
instrument of governing is still dic-
tatorial. Moreover, violence and

40

41

I

/

change by force are themselves un-
democratic, although they take
place as a result of the existence of a
previous undemocratic situation.
The society that is still entangled
around this resultant is a backward
society. What, then, is the solution?

The solution is f or the peoplejtobe
the instrument of governing — from
basic popular congresses to the Gen-
eral People's Congress. The govern-
ment administration is abolished
and replaced by people's commit-
tees. The General People's Congress
should be a national congress where
basic popular congresses, people's
administrative committees, unions,
syndicates and all professional asso-
ciations come together. If a devia-
tion from the society's law takes
place under this system, it should be
dealt with through a democratic re-
vision rather than by force. This is
not a process of voluntary choice of
the method of change or of treat-

ment; rather it is an inevitable re-
sult of the nature of such a democra-
tic system. In such a case, there is
no outside group against which vio-
lent action may be directed or which
may be held responsible for devia-
tion.

42

43

^

Democracy

means popular

rule not

popular

expression

THE PRESS

The natural person has freedom to
express himself even if, when he is
mad, he behaves irrationally to ex-
press his madness. The corporate
person also is free to express his
corporate identity. In these cases,
the first represents only himself,
and the second represents no more
than the group of natural persons
composing his corporate person.
The society consists of many natural
and many corporate persons. There-
fore, when a person, for instance,
expresses himself in an irrational
manner, that does not mean that the
other persons of the society also are
mad. The expression of a natural
person is only self-expression, and
that of a corporate person is only the
expression of the interests or view-
points of persons forming the corpo-
rate person. For example, the com-
pany for the production and sale of
tobacco only expresses the interests
of the participants in that company,

i.e. those who benefit from the pro-
duction or sale of tobacco although it
is harmful to the health of others.

The press is a means of expression
of the society and is not a means of
expression of a natural or corporate
person. Logically and democratical-
ly, the press, therefore, cannot be
owned by either of these.

Any newspaper owned by an indi-
vidual is his own and expresses only
his point of view. Any claim that a
newspaper represents public opinion
is groundless because it actually
expresses the viewpoints of a natu-
ral person. Democratically, a natu-
ral person should not be permitted to
own any means of publication or
information. However he has the
natural right to express himself by
any means, even if it is in an irra-
tional manner to prove his madness.
Any journal issued by a trading
association or by a chamber of com-
merce is only a means of expression
for this particular social group. It
presents its own point of view and
not the viewpoint of public opinion.

44

45

This applies to all other corporate
and natural persons in society. The
democratic press is that which is
issued by a popular committee com-
prising all the various categories of
society. In this case only, and not
otherwise, will the press or any
information medium be an express-
ion of the whole society and a bearer
of the viewpoint of its categories and
thereby the press or information
medium will be indeed democratic.
If the Medical Association issues a
journal, it must be purely medical.
Similarly this applies to other cate-
gories. The natural person has the
right to express only himself and he
is not entitled from the democratic
point of view to express anybody
else. In this way, what is called the
problem of press freedom in the
world will be solved radically and
democratically. The continuing
problem of press freedom in the
world today is generally the product
of the problem of democracy. It
cannot be solved unless the entire
crisis of democracy in the whole

46

society is solved. Only the Third
Universal Theory can solve the intri-
cate problem of democracy.

According to this theory, the demo-
cratic system is a cohesive structure
whose foundations are firmly laid on
basic popular congresses, people's
committees and professional asso-
ciations. All these come togethexJLn
the General People's Congress.
Absolutely, there is no other concep-
tion for a genuine democratic
society.

Finally, the era of the masses,
which approaches us at a rapid pace
following the era of the republics,
inflames the feelings and dazzles the
eyes. As much as this era gladly
announces the real freedom of the
masses and their happy emancipa-
tion from the shackles of instru-
ments of governing so much it warns
of the approach of an age of anarchy
and demagogy if the new democra-
cy, which is the authority of the
people, does not relapse and the

47

authority of the individual, class,
tribe, sect or party again comes to
predominate.

Theoretically, this is the genuine
democracy. But realistically, the
strong always rule, i.e., the stronger
part in the society is the one that
rules.

48

'

Muammar Al Qathafi

THE GREEN BOOK

Part Two
The Solution of the

Economic
Problem

'Socialism'

THE ECONOMIC BASIS

OF THE THIRD
UNIVERSAL THEORY

Important historical developments
have taken place which contribute to
solving the problem of work and
wages, i.e. the relationship between
the workers and the employers, be-
tween the producers and the owners.
The developments include fixed work-
ing-hours, wages for additional work,
different types of leave, minimum
wages, profit sharing and participation
in administration. In addition, arbit-
rary dismissal has been outlawed and
social security has been guaranteed,
along with the right to strike and
whatever other provisions are found in
almost all modern labour laws. Of no
less significance are the changes in the
field of ownership such as the emerg-
ence of systems limiting income or
outlawing private ownership and
transferring it to the state.

Despite all these not inconsiderable
developments in the history of the
economic problem, nevertheless the

51

Partners not
wage-workers

problem still basically exists. The
modifications, improvements, provi-
sions and other measures have made
the problem less severe than it was in
past centuries by gaining many advan-
tages for the workers. Yet, the econo-
mic problem has not been solved. All
the attempts which have concentrated
on ownership have not solved the prob-
lem of producers. They are still wage-
workers, even when ownership has
been transferred from the extreme
right to the extreme left or has been
given various intermediate positions.
Attempts to improve wages are as
important as those which lead to the
transference of ownership. The be-
nefits received by workers, guaran-
teed by legislation and protected by
Trade Unions are all that have been
achieved in tackling the problem of
wages. Thus the hard conditions of the
producers immediately after the In-
dustrial Revolution have been trans-
formed, and, in the course of time
workers, technicians and administra-
tors have gained previously unattain-
able rights. However, the economic
problem still, in fact, exists.

52

This attempt confined to wages was
certainly not a solution at all. It is an
artificial attempt, aimed merely at
reform, more of a charity than a recog-
nition of the right of workers. Why are
the workers given wages? Because
they carry out a production process for
the benefit of others who hire them to
produce a certain product. In this case,
they have not consumed their produc-
tion, but have been obliged to surren-
der it for a wage. The sound rule is:

l He who produces is the one who
consumes.'

Wage-workers are a type of slave.
however improved their wages may be.

The wage-worker is like a slave to
the master who hires him. He is even a
temporary slave, since his slavery
lasts as long as he works for wages
from the employer, whether the latter
is an individual or a state. The work-
ers' relationship with the owner of the
productive establishment as regards
their own interests is one and the same
. . . Under all conditions prevailing now
in the world they are wage-workers,

53

even though ownership varies . . . from
the right to the left. The public econo-
mic establishment itself gives to its
workers only wages and other social
benefits ; and these do not differ from
the charity granted to the workers by
the rich, the owners of private econo-
mic corporations.

The argument that, in the case of
public ownership, income reverts to
society, including the workers, in con-
trast to the case of the private corpora-
tion where income reverts only to its
owner, is valid. This is so provided that
we take into consideration the general
interests of the society rather than the
particular interests of the workers,
and provided that we assume that the
political authority which monopolizes
ownership is the authority of all the
people; that is to say the authority of
the people in their entirety, as prac-
tised through their popular congresses,
people's committees and professional
syndicates rather than the authority of
one class, one party, group of parties,
sect, family, tribe, individual or any
other representative authority.
However, what is received directly by

the workers, as regards their own
interests, in the form of wages, percen-
tage of the profit or social benefits, is
the same as is received by the workers
in the private corporation. That is to
say, workers in both public and private
establishments are equally wage-
workers though the owners differ.
Thus the change in ownership from one
type to another has not solved the
problem of the workers' right in what
has been produced directly by himself,
and not by society or for wages. The
proof is that the producers are still
wage-workers despite the change in
ownership.

The ultimate solution is to abolish
the wage-system, emancipate man
from its bondage and return to the
natural law which defined relation-
ships before the emergence of classes,
forms of government and man-made
laws. The natural rules are the mea-
sure, the reference book and the sole
course in human relations.

Natural law has led to natural social-
ism based on equality among the eco-
nomic factors of production and has
almost brought about, among indi-

54

55

viduals, consumption equal to nature's
production. But the exploitation of man
by man and the possession by some
individuals of more of the general
wealth than they need is a manifest
departure from natural law and the
beginning of distortion and corruption
in the life of the human community. It
is the beginning of the emergence of
the society of exploitation.

If we analyse the economic factors of
production from ancient times till now
we always find that they are composed
of these essentials: raw materials, an
instrument of production and a produc-
er. The natural rule of equality is that
each of the factors has a share in this
production, for if any of them is with-
drawn, there will be no production.
Each factor has an essential role in the
process of production and without it
production comes to a halt. As long as
each factor is essential and fundamen-
tal, they are all equal in their essential
character within the process of produc-
tion. Therefore they all should be equal
in their right to what is produced. The
encroachment of one factor on another
is opposed to the natural rule of equai-

56

ity, and is an attack on the right of
others. Each factor, then, has a share
regardless of the number of factors. If
we find a process of production which
can be performed by only two factors,
each factor shall have half of the
production. If it is carried out by three
factors, each shall have a third of the
production and so on . . .

Applying this natural rule to both
ancient and modern situations we find
the following:

In the state of manual production the
productive process involved raw mate-
rials, and man, the producer. Later, an
instrument of production intervened
between the two and man used it in the
productive process. The animal may
be considered as an example of the
instrument as a power unit. It, then,
developed and the machine replaced
the animal. Raw materials increased
in kind and quantity, from cheap sim-
ple materials to valuable complex
ones. Likewise man developed from an
ordinary worker into a technician and
an engineer and a large number of
workers began to be replaced by a few
technicians. Although the factors of

57

production have quantitatively and
qualitatively changed, the essential
role of each factor has not changed.
For example, the iron-ore which is one
of the factors of production, both past
and present, was primitively manufac-
tured by the ironsmith to produce a
knife, an axe or a spear ... etc. The
same iron-ore is now manufactured in
big furnaces, and from it engineers
and technicians produce machines, en-
gines and all kinds of vehicles. The
animal — the horse, the mule or the
camel and the like — which was one of
the factors of production has now been
replaced by the vast factory and huge
machines. The means of production
which were formerly primitive tools
have now become sophisticated tech-
nical equipment. The essential natural
factors of production are basically
stable despite their great develop-
ment. The essential stability of the
factors of production makes the natu-
ral rule sound. It is inevitable, after the
failure of all previous historical
attempts, which disregarded natural
law, to return to it in order, finally, to
solve the economic problem.

58

The previous historical theories
tackled the economic problem either
from the angle of the ownership of one
of the factors of production only or
from the angle of wages for production
only. They have not solved the real
problem, namely the problem of pro-
duction itself. Thus the most important
characteristic of the economic systems
prevailing in the world today is the
wage system which deprives the work-
er of any right, in his production
whether it is produced for society or
for a private establishment.

The industrial establishment is
based on raw materials, machines and
workers. Production is the outcome of
the workers' use of the machines in the
factory to manufacture raw materials.
In this way, the finished goods pass
through a process of production which
would have been impossible without
the raw materials, the factory and the
workers. So if we take away the raw
materials, the factory cannot operate;
if we take away the factory, the raw
materials will not be manufactured
and if we remove the producers, the
factory comes to a halt. The three

59

factors are equally essential in the
process of production. Without these
three factors there will be no produc-
tion. Any one factor cannot carry out
this process by itself. Even two of these
factors cannot carry it out. The natural
rule in this case requires that the
shares of the three factors in the pro-
duction be equal, i.e. the production^!
such a factory is divided into three
shares, a share for each of the factors
of production. It is not only the factory
which is important, but also those who
consume its production.

The same is the case in the process of
agricultural production. That which
involves man and land without a third
factor, the instrument, is exactly like
the manual process of industrial pro-
duction. Here production is only di-
vided into two shares in accordance
with the number of factors of produc-
tion. But if an agricultural machine or
the like is used, production is divided
into three shares: the land, the farmer
and the instrument used in the process
of agriculture.

Thus a socialist system is estab-
lished to which all processes of produc-

60

tion are subjected, by analogy with this
natural rule.

The producers are the workers. We
call them 'producers' because the
words 'workers', 'employees' or 'toil-
ers' are no longer applicable. The
reason is that workers, according to
the traditional definition, are quantita-
tively and qualitatively changing. The
working class is continually declining
as science and machines develop.

Strenuous tasks which previously
had to be performed by a number of
workers are now done by machines. To
run a machine requires a smaller num-
ber of workers. This is the quantitative
change in the labour force, while the
qualitative change necessitated the re-
placement of a physical force by tech-
nical skill.

A power which is totally concerned
with producing has now become one of
the factors of production. As a result of
these developments the workers have
changed from a multitude of ignorant
toilers into a limited number of techni-
cians, engineers and scientists. Conse-
quently. Trade Unions will disappear
to be replaced by professional and

61

technical syndicates because scientific
development is an irreversible gain to
humanity. Through such scientific de-
velopment, illiteracy will be eradi-
cated and the ordinary worker as a
temporal phenomenon will gradually
disappear. However, man, in his new
form, will always remain an essential
factor in the process of production.

NEED

Man's freedom is lacking if some-
body else controls what he needs. For
need may result in man's enslavement
of man. Need causes exploitation.
Need is an intrinsic problem and con-
flict grows out of the domination of
man's needs.

The house is a basic need of both the
individual and the family. Therefore, it
should not be owned by others. There is
no freedom for a man who lives in
another's house, whether he pays rent
or not. All attempts made by various
countries to solve the problem of hous-
ing are not solutions at all. The reason
is that those attempts do not aim at the
radical and ultimate solution of man,
which is the necessity of his owning his
own house. The attempts have concen-
trated on the reduction or increase of
rent and its standardization, whether
at public or private expense. In the
socialist society no one, including the
society itself, is allowed to have control
over man's need.

A person in
need is a
slave indeed

Masters in
their own
castles

62

63

In need

freedom

indeed

No one has the right to build a house,
additional to his own and that of his
heirs, for the purpose of renting it,
because the house represents another
person's need, and building it for the
purpose of rent is an attempt to have
control over the need of that man and
'In Need Freedom is Latent'.

The income is an imperative need for
man. Thus the income of any man in
the society should not be a wage from
any source or a charity from anyone.
For there are no wage-workers in the
socialist society, only partners. Your
ircome is a form of private ownership.
\ou manage it by yourself either to
meet your needs or to share in the
production, where you are one of its
main factors. Your share will not be
used as a wage paid for any person in
return for production.

The vehicle is a necessity both to the
individual and the family. Your vehicle
should not be owned by others. In the
socialist society no man or any other
authority can possess private vehicles
for the purpose of hiring them out, for
this is domination of the needs of
others.

LAND

Land is no one's property. But every-
one has the right to use it, to benefit
from it by working, farming or pastur-
ing. This would take place throughout a
man's life and the lives of his heirs,
and would be through his own effort
without using others, with or without
wages, and only to the extent of satis-
fying his own needs.

If possession of land is allowed, only
those who are living there have a share
in it. The land is permanently there,
while, in the course of time, users
change in profession, in capacity and in
their presence.

The purpose of the new socialist
society is to create a society which is
happy because it is free. This can be
achieved through satisfying the mate-
rial and spiritual needs of man, and
that, in turn, comes about through the
liberation of these needs from outside
domination and control.

Satisfaction of these needs must be
attained without exploiting or enslav-
ing others, or else, it will contradict the
purpose of the new socialist society.

64

65

Man in the new society works for
himself to guarantee his material
needs, or works for a socialist corpora-
tion in whose production he is a part-
ner, or performs a public service to the
society which provides his material
needs.

Economic activity in the new social-
ist society is productive activity for the
satisfaction of material needs. It is not
unproductive activity or an activity
which seeks profit in order, after satis-
fying material needs, to save the sur-
plus. That is impossible under the rules
of the new socialism.

The legitimate purpose of the indi-
vidual' s economic activity is solely to
satisfy his needs. For the wealth of the
world has limits at each stage as does
the wealth of each individual society.
Therefore no individual has the right to
carry out economic activity in order to
acquire more of that wealth than is
necessary to satisfy his needs, because
the excess amount belongs to other
individuals. He has the right to save
from his needs and from his own pro-
duction but not from the efforts of
others nor at the expense of their

66

needs. For if we allow economic activ-
ity to extend beyond the satisfaction of
needs, one person will only have more
than his needs by preventing another
from obtaining his. The savings which
are in excess of ones needs are
another person's share of the wealth of
society.

To allow private production for the
purpose of acquiring savings that ex-
ceed the satisfaction of needs is ex-
ploitation itself, as in permitting the
use of others to satisfy your own needs
or to get more than your own needs.
This can be done by exploiting a person
to satisfy the needs of others and
making savings for others at the ex
pense of his needs

Work for a wage is in addition to
being an enslavement of man as men-
tioned before, work without incentives
because the producer is a wage-worker
rather than a partner.

Whoever works for himself is cer
tainiy devoted to his productive work
becaue his incentive to production lies
in his dependence on his private work
to satisfy his material needs. Also
whoever works in a socialist ccrpora-

67

tion is a partner in its production. He
is, undoubtedly, devoted to his produc-
tive work because the impetus for
devotion to production is that he gets a
satisfaction of his needs through pro-
duction. But whoever works for a wage
has no incentive to work.

Work for wages failed to solve the
problem of increasing and developing
production. Work, either in the form of
services or production, is continually
deteriorating because it rests on the
shoulders of wage-workers.

EXAMPLES OF LABOUR FOR
WAGES FOR SOCIETY, OF

LABOUR FOR WAGES FOR A
PRIVATE ACTIVITY, AND
LABOUR FOR NO WAGES

First Example:

(a) A worker who produces ten ap-
ples for society. Society gives him one
apple for his production. The apple
fully satisfies his needs.

(b) A worker who produces ten ap-
ples for society. Society gives him one
apple for his production. The apple is
not enough to satisfy his needs.

68

Second Example:

A worker who produces ten apples
for another person and gets a wage of
less than the price of one apple.
Third Example:

A worker who produces ten apples
for himself.

THE CONCLUSION

The first (a) will not increase his
production for whatever the increase
might be, he will only get an apple for
himself. It is what satisfies his needs.
Thus all those working for such a
society are always psychologically
apathetic.

The first (b) has no incentive to
production itself, for he produces for
the society without obtaining satisfac-
tion of his needs. However he has to
continue to work without incentive be-
cause he is forced to submit to the
general conditions of work throughout
the society. That is the case with mem-
bers of that society.

The second does not initially work to
produce. He works to get wages. Since
his wages are not enough to satisfy his
needs, he will either search for another

69

master and sell him his work at a
better price or he will be obliged to
continue the same work just to survive.
The third is the only one who pro-
duces without apathy and without coer-
cion. In the socialist society, there is no
possibility for private production ex-
ceeding the satisfaction of individual
needs, because satisfaction of needs at
the expense of others is not allowed.
As the socialist establishments work
for the satisfaction of the needs of
society, the third example explains the
sound basis of economic production.
However, in all conditions, even in bad
ones, production continues for surviv-
al. The best proof is that in capitalist
societies production accumulates and
expands in the hands of a few owners
who do not work but exploit the efforts
of toilers who are obliged to produce in
order to survive. However, The Green
Book not only solves the problem of
material production but also pre-
scribes the comprehensive solution of
the problems of human society so that
the individual may be materially and
spiritually liberated ... a final libera-
tion to attain his happiness.

70

Other Examples:

If we assume that the wealth of
society is ten units and its population is
ten persons, the share oi each in the
wealth of society is 10/10 — only one of
the units per person. But if some mem-
bers of society possess more than one
unit, then other members of the same
society possess nothing: The reason is
that their share of the units of wealth
has been taken by others. Thus, there
are poor and rich in the society where
exploitation prevails.

Suppose that five members of that
society possess two units each. In this
case the other five possess nothing,
i.e., 50 per cent are deprived of their
right to their own wealth because the
additional unit possessed by each of
the first five is the share of each of the
second five.

If an individual in that society needs
only one of the units of the wealth of
society to satisfy his needs then the
individual possessing more than one
unit is. in fact, expropriating the right
of other members of the society. Since
this share exceeds what is required to
satisfy his needs, estimated at one of

71

the units of wealth, then he has seized
it to hoard it. Such hoarding is only
achieved at the expense of others'
needs, i.e., through taking others'
share in this wealth. That is why there
are those who hoard and do not spend
— that is, they save what exceeds the
satisfaction of their needs — and there
are those who beg and are deprived —
that is those who ask for their rights in
the wealth of their society and do not
find anything to consume. It is an act of
plunder and theft, but open and legiti-
mate under the unjust and exploitative
rules which govern that society.

Ultimately, all that is beyond the
satisfaction of needs should remain the
property of all the members of society.
But individuals only have the right to
save as much as they want from their
own needs, because the hoarding of
what exceeds their needs involves an
encroachment on public wealth.

The skilful and industrious have no
right to take hold of the share of others
as a result of their skill and industry.
But they can benefit from these advan-
tages. Also if a person is disabled or
lunatic, it does not mean that he does

72

not have the same share as the healthy
in the wealth of the society.

The wealth of the society is like a
corporation or a store of supply which
daily provides a number of people with
a quantity of supply of a definite
amount which is enough to satisfy the
needs of those people during that day.
Each person has the right to save out of
that quantity what he wants, i.e., he can
consume or save what he likes from his
share. In this he can use his own skill
and talents. But he who uses his talents
to take an additional amount for him-
self from the store of the public supply
is undoubtedly a thief. Therefore, he
who uses his skill to gain wealth that
exceeds the satisfaction of his needs is,
in fact, encroaching on a public right,
namely, the wealth of the society
which is like the store mentioned in
this example.

In the new socialist society differ-
ences in individual wealth are only
permissible for those who render a
public service. The society allocates
for them a certain share of the wealth
equivalent to that service.

The share of individuals only differs

73

according to the public service each of
them renders and as much as he
produces. Thus, the experiments of
history have produced a new experi-
ment, a final culmination of man's
struggle to attain his freedom and to
achieve happiness by satisfying his
needs, warding off the exploitation of
others, putting an ultimate end to
tyranny and finding a means for the
just distribution of society's wealth.
Under the new experiment you work
for yourself to satisfy your needs
rather than exploiting others to work
for you, in order to satisfy yours at
their expense: or working to plunder
the needs of others. It is the theory of
the liberation of needs in order to
emancipate man.

Thus the new socialist society is no
more than a dialectical consequence of
the unjust relations prevailing in this
world. It has produced the natural
solution, namely private ownership to
satisfy the needs without using others,
and socialist ownership, in which the
producers are partners in production.
The socialist ownership replaced a pri-
vate ownership based on the produc-

tion of wage-workers who had no right
in what they produced.

Whoever possesses the house you
dwell in, the vehicle you ride or the
income you live on, takes hold of your
freedom, or part of your freedom, and
freedom is indivisible. For man to be
happy, he must be free, and to be free,
man must possess his own needs.

Whoever possesses your needs con-
trols or exploits you. He may enslave
you despite any legislation outlawing
that.

The material needs of man that are
basic, necessary and-nexs onal. star t
with food, housing, clothing and trans
Port. . . . These must be within his
private and sacred ownership. They
are not to be hired from any quarter.
To obtain them through rent or hire
allows the real owners, even society in
general, to interfere in his private life,
to have control over his basic needs,
and then to dominate his freedom and
to deprive him of his happiness. The
owner of the costumes one has hired
could interfere to remove them even in
the street and leave one naked. The
owner of the vehicle could interfere,

74

75

leaving one in the middle of the road.
Likewise, the owner of the house could
interfere, leaving one without shelter.

It is ironic that man's basic needs
are treated by legal administrative or
other measures. Fundamentally, soci-
ety must be founded on the application
of the natural law to these needs.

Thej^r^seoLthe^s^
the happiness of man which can only
be realized through material and spir-
itual freedom. Attainment of sucn-lree^
dom depends on the extent of man's,,
ownership of his needs; ownership that
is personal and sacredly guaranteed,
i.e., your need must neither be owned
by somebody else, nor subject to plun-
der by any part of society. Otherwise,
you will live in a state of anxiety which
will take away your happiness and
render you unfree, because you live
under the apprehension of outside in-
terference in your basic needs.

The overturning of contemporary
societies, to change them from being
societies of wage-workers to societies
of partners is inevitable as a dialectic-
al result of the contradictory economic
theses prevailing in the world today,

76

and is the inevitable dialectical result
of the injustice to relations based on
the wage system, which have not been
solved.

The threatening power of the Trade
Unions in the capitalist world is cap-
able of overturning capitalist societies
of wage-workers into societies of part-
ners.

It is probable that the outbreak of the
revolution to achieve socialism will
start with the appropriation by the
producers of their share in what they
produce. The objective of the workers'
strikes will shift from a demand for the
increase of wages to a demand for
sharing in the production. All that will,
sooner or later, take place under the
guidance of The Green Book.

But the final step is when the new
socialist society reaches the stage
where profit and money disappear. It
is through transforming society into a
fully productive society and through
reaching, in production, the level where
the material needs of the members of
society are satisfied. In that final stage
profit will automatically disappear
and there will be no need for money.

77

The recognition of profit is an ack-
nowledgement of exploitation. The
mere recognition of profit removes the
possibility of limiting it. Measures
taken to put a limit to it through
various means are mere attempts at
reform, which are not radical, in order
to stop man's exploitation by man.

The final solution is the_ abolitiorr of_
profit. But as profit is the driving force
of economic activity, its abolition is not
a decision that can be taken lightly. It
must result from the development of
socialist production which will be
achieved if the satisfaction of the
material needs of society is realised.
The endeavour to increase profit will
ultimately lead to its disappearance.

78

DOMESTIC SEE VANTS

Domestic servants, paid or unpaid
are a type of slave. Indeed they are the
slaves of the modern age. But since the
new socialist society is based on part-
nership in production rather than on
wages, natural socialist law does not
apply to them, because they render
services rather than production. Ser-
vices have no physical production
which is divisible into shares in accord-
ance with natural socialist law.
Domestic servants, therefore, have no
alternative but to work with or without
wages under bad conditions. As wage-
workers are a type of slave and their
slavery exists as long as they work for
wages, so domestic servants are in a
lower position than the wage-workers
in the economic establishments and
corporations outside the houses. They
are, then, even more entitled to eman-
cipation from the slavery of the society
than are wage-workers from their soci-
ety. Domestic servants form one of the
social phenomena that stands next to

79

A servant
and prisoner
are comrades
in chains

Do-it-yourself

that of slaves. The Third Universal
Theory is a herald to the masses
announcing the final salvation from all
fetters of injustice, despotism, ex-
ploitation and economic and political
hegemony. It has the purpose of estab-
lishing the society of all people, where
all men are free and equal in authority,
wealth and arms, so that freedom may
gain the final and complete triumph.
The Green Book, therefore, pre-
scribes the way of salvation to the
masses of wage-workers and domestic
servants in order to achieve the free-
dom of man. It is inevitable, then, to
struggle to liberate domestic servants
from their slave status and transform
them into partners outside the houses,
in places where there is material pro-
duction which is divisible into shares
according to its factors. The house is to
be served by its residents. But the
solution to necessary house service
should not be through servants, with or
without wages, but through employees
who can be promoted while performing
their house jobs and can enjoy social
and material safeguards like any em-
ployee in the public service.

80

Muammar Al Qathafi

THE GREEN BOOK

Part Three
The

Social Basis

of the Third
Universal Theory

THE SOCIAL BASIS OF

THE THIRD
UNIVERSAL THEORY

The social, i.e. national, factor is the
driving force of human history. The
social bond which binds together each
human group, from the family through
the tribe to the nation, is the basis for
the movement of history.

Heroes in history are persons v/ho
have made sacrifices for causes. But
for what causes? They have made
sacrifices for others. But which
others? They are those who have a
relationship with them. The relation-
ship between an individual and a group
is a social relationship, i.e. the re-
lationship between the members of a
nation. For nations are founded on
nationalism. Those causes, therefore,
are national causes and national re-
lationship is the social relationship.
The social relationship is derived from
society, i.e. the relationship between
the members of a society, just as
nationalism is derived from the nation,
i.e. the relationship between the mem-

83

bers of a nation. The social relation-
ship is, accordingly, the national re-
lationship anlTthe national relationship
is the social relationship. For the group
is a nation and the nation is a group
even if they differ in number, leaving
aside the extended definition of the
group which means the provisional
group regardless of the national rela-
tions of its members. What is meant by
the group here is the group which is
permanent by virtue of its own nation-
al relations.

Besides, historical movements are
mass movements, i.e. group move-
ments for its own interests . . . for its
independence from a different group.
Each group has its own social struc-
ture which binds it together. Group
movements are always movements for
independence in order that subjugated
or oppressed groups may attain self-
realisation. As for the struggle for
power, it occurs within the group itself
down to the family level, as expounded
in Part One of the Green Book, which
deals with the Political Basis of the
Third Universal Theory. A group
movement is a nation's movement for

84

I

its own interests. By virtue of its na-
tional structure, each group has com-
mon social needs which must be collec-
tively satisfied. These needs are in no
way individualistic. They are collec-
tive needs, rights, demands, or objec-
tives of a nation which is bound by a
single nationalism. That is why these
movements are called national move-
ments. Contemporary national libera-
tion movements are themselves social
movements. They will not come to an
end before every group is liberated
from the domination of another group,
i.e. the world is now passing through
one of the regular cycles of the move-
ment of history, namely, the national
struggle in support of nationalism.

In the world of man, this is the
historical reality, as it is a social real
ity. That means that the national strug-
gle — the social struggle — is the basis
of the movement of history, because it
is stronger than all other factors since
it is the origin . . . the basis ... it is in
the nature of the human group . . . the
nature of the nation. It is the nature of
life itself. Other animals, apart from
man, live in groups. Indeed, the group

85

3%

is the basis for the survival of all
groups within the animal kingdom. So
nationalism is the basis for the surviv-
al of nations.

Nations whose nationalisms-is— des-
troyed are subject to ruin. Minorities,
whlch"are^ one of the main political
problems in the world, are the outcome
of a social cause. They are nations
whose nationalism has been destroyed
and torn apart. The social factor is,
therefore, a factor of life ... a factor of
survival. It is the nation's natural in-
nate momentum for survival.

Nationalism in the world of man and
group instinct in the animal kingdom
are like gravity in the domain of min-
eral and celestial bodies. If the mass of
the sun were smashed so that it lost its
gravity, the gases would blow away
and its unity would no longer exist.
Accordingly, the unity is the basis for
its survival. The factor of unity in any
group is a social factor, i.e. national-
ism. For this reason a group struggles
for its own national unity, because its
survival lies in that.

The national factor, which is the
social bond, works automatically to

86

impel the nation towards survival, in
the same way that the gravity of an
object works to keep it as one mass
around the nucleus. The diffusion and
dispersion of atoms in the atomic bomb
are the result of the explosion of the
nucleus which is the focus of gravita-
tion for the atoms around it. When the
factor of unity in those components is
broken into pieces and gravity is lost,
every atom is dispersed. This is the
nature of matter. It is an established
law of nature To disregard it or collide
with it is damaging to life. Thus man's
life is damaged when he begins to
disregard nationalism . . . the social
factor . . . the gravity of the group . . .
the secret of its survival. There is no
rival to the social factor in influencing
the unity of one group except the reli-
gious factor, which may divide the
national group or unite groups with
different nationalisms. However, the
social factor will eventually gain sway.
This has been the case throughout the
ages. Originally, each nation had one
religion. This was harmony. In fact,
however, differences arose which be-
came a genuine cause of conflict and

87

instability in the life of the peoples
throughout the ages.

The sound rule is that every nation
should have a religion. The contrary to
that is the abnormal. Such an abnor-
mality creates an unsound situation
which becomes a real cause for dis-
putes within a national group. There is
no other solution but to be in harmony
with the natural rule that each nation
has one religion. When the social factor
is compatible with the religious factor,
harmony is achieved and the life of
groups becomes stable and strong and
develops soundly.

Marriage is a process that exercises
negative and positive effects on the
social factor though both man and
woman are free to accept whom they
want and reject whom they do not want
as a natural rule of freedom. Marriage
within a group, by its very nature,
strengthens its unity and brings about
collective growth in conformity with
the social factor.

88

THE FAMIL Y

To the individual man the family is
of more importance than the state.
Mankind acknowledges the individual
man and the individual man acknow-
ledges the family which is his cradle,
his origin and his social 'umbrella'.
Mankind, as a matter of fact, is the
individual and the family, not the
state. The state is an artificial econo-
mic and political system, sometimes a
military system, with which mankind
has no relationship and has nothing to
do. The family is exactly like an in-
dividual plant in nature which is
composed of branches, leaves and
blossoms. However, adapting the natu-
ral environment with farms and gar-
dens, and the like is an artificial proce-
dure which has nothing to do with the
actual nature of the plant. The fact is
that political, economic or military
factors have organized groups of fami-
lies into a state which has nothing to do
with mankind. Equally any position,
condition or measure resulting in the

89

dispersal, decline or loss of the family
is inhuman and unnatural. Indeed, it is
an arbitrary condition, exactly like
any action, condition or measure
which leads to the destruction of the
plant, the breaking of its branches, the
fading of its blossoms and leaves.

Societies in which the existence and
unity of the family are threatened, in
any circumstances, are similar to
fields whose plants are in danger of
being swept away or threatened by
drought or fire, or of withering away.
The blossoming garden or field is that
whose plants grow, blossom, pollinate
and root naturally. The same holds
true for human society.

The flourishing society is that in
which the individual grows naturally
within the family and the family itself
flourishes in the society. The indi-
vidual is linked to the larger family of
mankind like the leaf to the branch or
the branch to the tree. They have no
value or life if separated. The same is
the case for the individual if he is
separated from the family, i.e. the
individual without a family has no-
value or social life. If human society.

90

reached the stage where man existed
without a family, it would become a
society of tramps, without roots; like
artificial plants.

91

N

THE TRIBE

•

A tribe is a family which has grown
as a result of procreation. It follows
that a tribe is a big family. Equally a
nation is a tribe which has grown
through procreation. The nation, then,
is a big tribe. So the world is a nation,
which has been ramified into various
nations. The world, then, is a big na-
tion. The relationship which binds the*"
falnily is that which binds the tribe, the
nation and the world. However, it
weakens with the increase in number.
The concept of man is that of the
nation, the concept of nation is that of
the tribe, and the concept of the tribe is
that of the family. However, the degree
of warmth involved diminishes as the
relationship moves from the smaller
level to the larger one. This is a social
fact only denied by those who are
ignorant of it.

The social bond, cohesiveness, unity,
intimacy and love are stronger at the
family level than at the tribal level . . .
stronger at the tribal level than at that

of the nation, and stronger at the level
of the nation than at that of the world.

The advantages, privileges, values
and ideals, which are based on social
bonds, exist where those bonds are
natural and undoubtedly strong, i.e.
they are stronger at the family level
than at that of the tribe, stronger at the
tribal level than that of the nation and
stronger at nation's level than that of
the world. Thus these social bonds and
the benefits, advantages and ideals
associated with them are lost where-
ver the family, the tribe, nation or
mankind vanish or are lost.// is, there-
fore, of great importance for human
society to maintain the cohesiveness of
the family, the tribe, the nation and the
waEd in order to benefit from the
advan tages, privileges, values and ideals
yielded by the solidarity, cohesiveness,
unity, intimacy and love of the family,
tribe, nation and human iiy .

In social terms, the family society is
better than that of the tribe the tribal
society is better than that of the nation
and the society of the nation is better
than world society as regards fellow
ship, affection, solidarity and benefit.

92

MERITS OF THE TRIBE

Since the tribe is a large family, it
provides its members with the same
material benefits and social advan-
tages the family provides for its mem-
bers. For the tribe is a secondary
family. What needs to be emphasized
is that the individual might sometimes
act in a disgraceful manner which he
would not dare to do in front of his
family. But since the family is smaller
in size he can escape from its supervi-
sion, unlike the tribe whose supervi-
sion is felt by all its members. In view
of these considerations the tribe forms
a behaviour pattern for its members
which will be transformed into a social
education which is better and more
human than any school education. The
tribe is a social school where its mem-
bers are brought up from childhood to
absorb high ideals which are trans-
formed into a behaviour pattern for
life. These become automatically
rooted as the human being grows,
unlike education with its curricula,
formally dictated and gradually lost
with the growth of the individual. This

94

is so because it is formal and ruled by
tests and because the individual is
aware of the fact that it is dictated to
him.

The tribe is a natural social 'umbrel-
la' for social security. By virtue of
social tribal traditions, the tribe pro-
vides for its members collective pay-
ment of ransom, collective fines, col-
lective revenge and collective defence,
i.e. social protection.

Blood is the prime factor in the
formation of the tribe but it is not the
only factor because affiliation is also a
factor in the formation of the tribe.
With the passage of time the difference
between the factors of blood and affi-
liation disappears, leaving the tribe as
one social and physical unit. But it is a
unit of blood and origin more than any
other.

95

THE NA TION

The nation is the individual's nation-
al political 'umbrella' and it is wider
than the social 'umbrella' provided by
the tribe to its members. Tribalism
damages nationalism because tribal
allegiance weakens national loyalty
and flourishes at its expense. In the
same way loyalty to the family
flourishes at the expense of tribal
loyalty and weakens it. National fana-
ticism is essential to the nation but at
the same time it is a threat to hu-
manity.

The nation in the world community is
similar to the family in the tribe. The
more the families of one tribe quarrel
and become fanatic, the more the tribe
is threatened. Equally if the members
of one family quarrel and each of them
seeks only his personal interests, the
family is threatened, and if the tribes
of a nation quarrel and seek their own
interests, that nation is threatened.
National fanaticism, the use of nation-
al force against weak nations, or the
national progress which is the outcome

96

of plundering from other nations, are
evil and harmful to humanity. Howev-
er, the powerful individual who re-
spects himself and is aware of his own
responsibilities is important and useful
to the family, just as a strong respect-
able family, which is aware of its
importance, is socially and materially
useful to the tribe. Equally useful to
the whole world is the progressive,
productive and civilized nation. The
national political structure is damaged
when it descends to the lower social
level, namely the family and tribe, and
attempts to act in their manner and to
adopt their views.

The nation is a large family which
has passed through the stage of the
tribe and also through the ramifica-
tions of the tribes that have branched
out of one origin; it includes as well
those members who affiliated them-
selves with its destiny. The family,
likewise, grows into a nation only after
passing through the stages of the tribe
and its ramifications, as well as
through the stage of affiliation which
comes about as a result of various
types of a social mixture. Inevitably

97

/

this is achieved over long periods of
time. Although the passage of time
creates nations, it also helps to frag
ment old ones. However, the common
origin and shared destiny through affi-
liation are two historic bases for any
nation, though origin ranks first and
affiliation second. A nation is not de-
fined only by origin, even though origin
is its basis and beginning. In addition
to that a nation is formed by human
accumulations through the course of
history which induce a group of people
to live in one area of land, make a
common history, form one heritage
and face the same destiny. Finally, the
nation, regardless of blood bond, is the
sense of belonging and a common des-
tiny.

But why has the map of the earth
witnessed great nations that dis-
appeared to be replaced by other na-
tions and vice versa? Is the reason
political only, without any relationship
to the social aspect of the Third Uni-
versal Theory? Or is it social and
properly the concern of this part of the
Green Book? Let us see: The family is
indisputably a social structure, rather

98

than political. The same applies to the
tribe because it is a family which has
reproduced, procreated and become
many families. Equally the nation is a
tribe, after it has grown and its bran-
ches have multiplied and become
transformed into clans, then into
tribes.

The nation is also a social -staic lure
whose bond is nationalism, the tribe is
a social structure whose bond is tribal-
ism, the family is a social structure
whose bond is family ties; and the
nations of the world are social struc-
tures v/hose bond is humanity. These
are self evident facts. Then there is the
political structure of states which form
the political map of the world. But why
does the map of the world keep chang-
ing from one age to another? The
reason is that the political structure
may, or may not, be consistent with the
social structure. When it is consistent
in a nation, it lasts and does not
change. If the change is forced by
external colonialism or internal col-
lapse, it reappears under the emblem
of national struggle, national revival
or national unity. When the political

99

structure embraces more than one na-
tion, its map will be torn up by each
nation gaining independence under the
emblem of nationalism. Thus, the
maps of the empires, which the world
has witnessed, have been torn up be-
cause they were made up of a number
of nations. When every nation clings
fanatically to its nationalism and seeks
independence, the political empire is
torn up and its components go back to
their social origins. The evidence is
crystal clear in the history of the world
if we review all its ages.

But why were those empires made
up of different nations? The answer is
that the state is not only a social
structure like the family, the tribe and
the nation, but rather a political entity
created by several factors, the sim-
plest and foremost of which is national-
ism. The national state is the only
political form which is consistent with
the natural social structure. Its exist-
ence lasts, unless it becomes subject to
the tyranny of another stronger nation-
alism, or unless its political structure,
as a state, is affected by its social

100

structure in the form of tribes, clans
and families. It is damaging to the
political structure if it is subjected to
the family, tribal, or sectarian social
structure and adopts its characteris-
tics.

However, religious, economic and
military factors also contribute to
form a state which differs from the
simple state, the national state.

A common religion, the require-
ments of economics or military con-
quests may constitute a state embrac-
ing several nationalisms. Thus, in one
age the world witnesses a state or an
empire which it sees disappear in
another age. When the spirit of nation-
alism emerges stronger than the reli-
gious spirit and conflict flares up be-
tween different nationalisms which
were brought together, for example,
by one religion, each nation becomes
independent and recovers its social
structure. That empire, then, dis-
appears. The role of religion reappears
when the religious spirit emerges
stronger than the spirit of nationalism.
Consequently the various nationalisms
are unified under the banner of religion

101

until the national role appears once
again and so on.

All the states which are composed of
several nationalisms for various
reasons — whether of religious, econo-
mics, military power or of man-made
ideologies — will be torn up by the
national conflict until each nationalism
is independent, i.e. the social factor
will inevitably triumph over the poli-
tical factor.

Therefore, despite political factors
which necessitate the establishment
of the state, the basis for the life of
individuals is the family, the tribe,
then the nation, extending eventually
to all humanity. The essential factor is
the social factor. It is the permanent
factor, namely nationalism. Stress
should be laid on social reality and
family care in order to bring up the
integrated well-educated man. Care
should then be given to the tribe as a
social 'umbrella' and natural social
school which brings up man at the
post-family stage. Then comes the na-
tion. The individual learns social
values only from the family and the
tribe which form a natural social struc-

ture engineered by no particular indi-
vidual. Taking care of the family is for
the sake of the individual just as the
care of the tribe is in the interest of the
family, the individual and the nation,
i.e. nationalism. The social factor,
namely the national factor, is the
genuine and permanent driving force
of history.

To disregard the national bond of
human groups and to establish a poli-
tical system contradictory to social
reality sets up a temporary structure
which will be destroyed by the move-
ment of the social factor of those
groups, i.e. the national movement of
each nation.

All these realities are innate in the
life of man and are not rational con-
junctures. Every individual in the
world should be aware of these reali-
ties and work accordingly, so that his
action may be worthwhile. It is neces-
sary to know these proven realities in
order to avoid deviation, disorder and
damage in the life of human groups
which are the result of a lack of under-
standing and respect for these princi-
ples of human life.

102

103

'

WOMAN

It is an undisputed fact that both
man and woman are human beings. It
follows as a sell-evident fact that
woman and man are equal as human
beings. Discrimination between man
and woman is a flagrant act of oppres-
sion without any justification. For
woman eats and drinks as man eats
and drinks . . . Woman loves and hates
as man loves and hates . . . Woman
thinks, learns and understands as man
thinks, learns and understands . . .
Woman, like man, needs shelter, clo-
thing and vehicles . . . Woman feels
hunger and thirst as man feels hunger
and thirst . . . Woman lives and dies as
man lives and dies.

But why are there man and woman?
Indeed, human society is composed
neither of man alone nor of woman
alone. It is made up naturally of man
and woman. Why were not only men
created? Why were not only women
created? After all, what is the differ-
ence between man and woman? Why
was it necessary to create man and

104

woman? There must be a natural
necessity for the existence of man and
woman, rather than man only or
woman only. It follows that neither of
them is exactly the other, and the fact
that a natural difference exists be-
tween man and woman is proved by
the created existence of man and
woman. This means, as a matter of
fact, that there is a role for each one of
them, matching the difference be-
tween them. Accordingly, there must
be different prevailing conditions for
each one to live and perform their
naturally different roles. To compre-
hend this role, we must understand the
differences in the nature of man and
woman, namely the natural differ-
ences between them:

Woman is a female and man is a
male. According to a gynaecologist,
woman menstruates or suffers feeble-
ness every month, while man, being a
male, does not menstruate and he is
not subject to the monthly period
which is a bleeding. A woman, being a
female, is naturally subject to monthly
bleeding. When a woman does not
menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is

105

pregnant she becomes, due to pregnan-
cy, feeble for about a year, which
means that all her natural activities
are seriously reduced until she deliv-
ers her baby. When she delivers her
baby or has had a miscarriage, she
suffers puerperium, a feebleness
attendant on delivery or miscarriage.
As the man does not get pregnant, he is
not liable to the feebleness which
woman, being a female, suffers. After-
wards woman breast-feeds the baby
she bore. Breast-feeding continues for
about two years. Breast-feeding means
that a woman is so inseparable from
her baby that her activity is seriously
reduced. She becomes directly respon-
sible for another person whom~~she
helps to carry out his biological func-
tions, without which it would die. The
man, on the other hand, neither con-
ceives nor breast-feeds.

All these innate characteristics form
differences because of which man and
woman cannot be equal. These, in
themselves^ are the realities that
necessitate the distinction between
male and female, i.e. man and woman:
they assign to each of them a different

106

role or function in life. This means that
man cannot replace woman in car-
rying out these functions. It is worthy
of consideration that these biological
functions are a heavy burden, causing
woman great effort and suffering.
However, without these functions
which woman performs, human life
would come to an end. It follows that it
is a natural function which is neither
voluntary nor compulsory. It is an
essential function, whose sole alterna-
tive is that human life would come to a
complete standstill.

There 4s— a-~4el iber ate in tervention
against conception which is the alter-
native to human life. In addition to that
there is a partial deliberate interven-
tion against conception, as well as
against breast-feeding. All these are
links in a chain of actions against
natural life, culminating in murder,
i.e. for a woman to kill herself in order
not to conceive, deliver and breast-
feed, is within the realm of deliberate
interventions against the nature of life
embodied in conception, breast-
feeding, maternity and marriage,
though they differ only in degree.

107

To dispense with the natural role of
woman in maternity — i.e. nurseries-
replacing mothers — is a start in
dispensing with the human society and
transforming it into a biological socie-
ty with an artificial way of life. To
separate children from their mothers
and to cram them into nurseries is a
process by which they are transformed
into something very close to chicks, for
nurseries are similar to poultry farms
in which chicks are crammed after
they are hatched. Nothing else would
be appropriate for man's nature, and
would suit his dignity, except natural
motherhood, (i.e. the child is raised by
his mother . . .) in a family where the
true principles of motherhood, father-
hood and brotherhood prevail rather
than in a centre similar to a poultry
breeding farm. Poultry, like the rest of
the members of the animal kingdom,
needs motherhood as a natural phase.
Therefore, breeding them on farms
similar to nurseries is against their
natural growth. Even their meat is
closer to synthetic meat than natural
meat. Meat from mechanized poultry
farms is not tasty and may not be

108

nourishing because the chicks are not
naturally bred, i.e. they are not raised
in the protective shade of natural
motherhood. The meat of wild birds is
more tasty and nourishing because
they grow naturally and are naturally
fed. As for children who have neither
family nor shelter, society is their
guardian, only for them should society
establish nurseries and the like. It is
better for those to be taken care of by
society rather than by individuals who
are not their parents.

If a test were carried out to discover
the natural propensity of the child
towards his mother and the nursery,
the child would opt for his mother and
not the nursery. Since the natural ten-
dency of a child is towards his mother,
she is the natural and proper person to
give the child the protection of nursing.
Sending a child to a nursery in place of
his mother is coercion and oppression
against its free natural propensity.

The natural growth for all living
things is free sound growth. To substi-
tute a nursery for a mother is coercive
action against free sound growth. Chil-
dren who are driven to a nursery are

109

driven compulsorily or by exploitation
and simple-mindedness. They are driv-
en to nurseries purely by material-
istic and not social considerations. If
coercion and childish simple-
mindedness were removed, they would
certainly reject the nursery and cling
to their mother. The only justification
for such an unnatural and inhuman
process is the fact that the woman is in
a position unsuitable to her nature, i.e.
she is compelled to perform duties
which are unsocial and anti-
motherhood.

The woman, whose nature has
assigned to her a natural role different
from that of man, must be in an
appropriate position to perform her
natural role.

Motherhood is the female's function,
not the male's. Consequently, it is
unnatural to separate children from
their mother. Any attempt to take
children away from their mother is
coercion, oppression and dictatorship.
The mother who abandons her mater-
nity contradicts her natural role in life.
She must be provided with her rights
and conditions which are appropriate,

110

non-coercive and unoppressive. Thus
she can carry out her natural role
under natural conditions. Anything
else is a self-contradictory situation. If
the woman is forced to abandon her
natural role as regards conception and
maternity, she falls victim to coercion
and dictatorship. A woman who needs
work that renders her unable to per-
form her natural function is not free
and is compelled to do that by need, for
in need freedom is latent.

Among suitable and even essential
conditions which enable the woman to
perform her natural role, which differs
from that of man, are those very condi-
tions which are proper to a human
being who is sick and burdened with
pregnancy, i.e. bearing another human
being in her womb, which renders her
physically incapacitated. It is unjust to
place such a woman in this stage of
maternity into circumstances of phy-
sical work incompatible with her con-
dition. Such work is a_punishment_jQiL
woman for her betrayal of maternity
and of mankind. It is also a tax she
pays for entering the realm of men who
are not, of course, of her sex.

111

The belief, including the woman's
own belief, that the woman carries out
physical labour of her own accord, is
not, in fact, true. For she performs the
physical work only because the
harsh materialistic society has
placed her, without her being directly
aware, in coercive circumstances. She
has no alternative but to submit to the
conditions of that society while she
thinks that she works of her own
accord. However, the rule that 'there is
no difference between man and woman
in every thing' deprives her of her
freedom.

The phrase 'in every thing' is a
monstrous deception of woman. This
idea will destroy the appropriate and
necessary conditions which constitute
the privilege which woman ought to
enjoy apart from man in accordance
with her nature on which a natural role
in life is based.

To demand equality between man
and woman in carrying heavy weights
while the woman is pregnant is unjust
and cruel. To demand equality be-
tween them in fasting and hardship,
while she is breast-feeding, is unjust

112

and cruel. To demand equality be-
tween them in any dirtv work, which
stains her beauty and detracts from
her femininity, is unjust and cruel.
Education that leads to work unsuit-
able for her nature is unjust and cruel
as well.

There is no difference between man
and woman in all that concerns hu-
manity. None of them can marry the
other against his or her will, or divorce
without a just trial. Neither the woman
nor the man can remarry without a
previous agreement on divorce. The
woman is the owner of the house be-
cause it is one of the suitable and
necessary conditions for a woman who
menstruates, conceives, and cares for
her children. The woman is the owner
of the maternity shelter, which is the
house. Even in the animal world,
which differs in many ways from that
of man, and where maternity is also a
duty according to nature, it is coercion
to deprive the young of their mother or
deprive the female of her shelter.

A woman is but a female. Being
female means that she has a biological
nature different from that of man. The

113

'

female's biological nature differing, as
it does, from that of the male, has
imparted to a woman characteristics
different from those of a man in form
and essence. A woman's anatomy is
different from that of a man just as the
female in plants and animals are diffe-
rent from the male. This is a natural
and incontrovertible fact. In the anim-
al and plant kingdoms the male is
naturally created strong and tough,
while the female is created beautiful
and gentle. These are natural and
eternal characteristics innate in these
living creatures, whether called hu-
man beings, animals or plants.

In view of his different nature and in
line with the laws of nature, the male
has played the role of the strong and
tough without compulsion but simply
because he is created in that way. The
female has played the role of the
beautiful and the gentle, not because
she wanted to, but because she is
created so. This natural rule is just,
partly because it is natural, and partly
because it is the basic rule for free-
dom. For all living creatures are cre-
ated free and any interference with

114

that freedom is coercion. Non-
commitment to these natural roles and
a lack of concern towards their roles
amount to an act of negligence and
destruction of the values of life itself.
Nature has thus been designed in har-
mony with the inevitability of life from
what is being to what will become. The
living creature is a being who inevit-
ably lives until he is dead. Existence
between the beginning and the end is
based on a natural law, without choice
or compulsion. It is natural. It is natu-
ral freedom.

In the animal, plant and human king-
doms there must be a male and a
female for life to occur from its begin-
ning to its end. They do not only exist
but they have to play, with aosolute
efficiency, the natural role foe which
they have been created. If their role is
not efficiently performed there must
be some defect in the course of life
caused by certain circumstances. This
is the case of societies nowadays
almost everywhere in the world as a
result of confusing the roles of man and
woman, i.e. as a result of endeavours
to transform a woman into a man. In

115

harmony with their nature and its
purpose they must be creative within
their respective roles. For the opposite
is retrogressive. It is a trend against
nature, which is as destructive to the
rule of freedom, as it is hostile to both
life and survival. Men and women
must perform, not abandon the role for
which they are created. Abandoning
the role or even a part of it only occurs
as a result of coercive conditions, i.e.
under abnormal conditions. The
woman who rejects pregnancy, mar-
riage, make up and femininity lor
reasons of health, abandons her natu-
ral role in life under these coercive
conditions of health. The woman who
rejects marriage, pregnancy or
motherhood etc., because of work,
abandons her natural role under the
same coercive conditions. The woman
who rejects marriage, pregnancy or
maternity etc., without any concrete
cause, abandons her natural role as a
result of a coercive condition which is a
moral deviation from the norm. Thus,
abandoning the natural role of female
and male in life can only occur under
unnatural conditions which are con-

trary to nature and a threat to surviv-
al. Consequently, there must be a
world revolution which puts an end to
all materialistic conditions hindering
woman from performing her natural
role in life and driving her to carry out
man's duties in order to be equal in
rights. Such a revolution will inevit-
ably take place, particularly in the
industrial societies, as a response by
the instinct of survival, even without
any instigator of revolution such as the
Green Book.

All societies nowadays look upon
woman as no more than an article of
merchandise. The East regards her as a
commodity for buying and selling, while
the West does not recognise her femi-
ninity.

Driving woman to do man's work is
unjust aggression against the feminin-
ity with which she is naturally pro-
vided for a natural purpose essential to
life. For man's work disguises the
woman's beautiful features which are
created for female roles. They are
exactly like blossoms which are cre-
ated to attract pollen and to produce
seeds. If we did away with the blos-

116

117

soms, the role of plants in life would
come to an end. It is the natural
embellishment in butterflies and birds
as well as the rest of animal females
which is created for that natural vital
goal. If a woman carries out man's
work, she will be transformed into a
man abandoning her role and her beau-
ty. A woman has full rights to live
without being forced to change into a
man and to give up her femininity.

The physical structure, which is
naturally different between man and
woman, leads to differences in the
functions of their different organs
which lead in turn to differences in the
psyche, mood, nerves and physical
appearance. A woman is tender. A
woman is pretty. A woman weeps easi-
ly. A woman is easily frightened. In
general woman is gentle and man is
tough by virtue of their inbred nature.

To ignore natural differences be-
tween man and woman and mix their
roles is an absolutely uncivilized atti-
tude, hostile to the laws of nature,
destructive to human life, and a
genuine cause for the wretchedness of
human social life.

Modern industrial societies, which
have made woman adapt to the same
physical work as man at the expense of
her femininity and her natural role in
terms of beauty, maternity and peace
of mind — those societies are uncivil-
ized. They are materialistic, uncivil-
ized societies. It is as stupid as it is
dangerous to civilization and humanity
to copy them.

The question, then, is not whether the
woman works or does not work. For it
is a ridiculous materialistic presentation.
Work should be provided by the society
to all able members — men and women
— who need work, but on condition that
each individual should work in the field
that suits him, and not be forced to
carry out unsuitable work.

For the children to find themselves
under adult working conditions is in-
justice and dictatorship. Equally it is
injustice and dictatorship for woman to
find herself under the working condi-
tions of man.

Freedom means that every human
being gets that education which qual-
ifies him for work which is appropriate
to him. Dictatorship means that a

118

119

human being learns what is not suit-
able for him. That leads him to work
which is not suitable for him. Work
which is appropriate to man is not
always appropriate to woman, and the
knowledge that is proper for the child
is not suitable for the adult.

There is no difference in human
rights between man and woman, the
child and the adult. But there is no
absolute equality between them as re-
gards their duties.

120

MINORITIES

What is a minority? What are its
pros and cons? How can the problem of
minorities be solved in accordance
with the solution presented by the
Third Universal Theory to various hu-
man problems?

There are only two types of minor-
ities. One of them belongs to a nation
which provides it with a social frame-
work, while the other has no nation and
forms its own social framework. The
latter is the one that forms one of the
historic accumulations which even-
tually constitute a nation by virtue of a
sense of belonging and a common des-
tiny.

It is clear now that such a minority
has its own social rights. Any en-
croachment on these rights by any
majority is an act of injustice. The
social characteristic is personal and is
not to be given or taken away. Its
political and economic problems can
only be solved by the masses in whose
hands power, wealth and arms should

121

be placed. Viewing the minority as a
political and economic minority is dic-
tatorship and injustice.

THE BLACKS

THE BLACKS WILL PREVAIL
IN THE WORLD

122

The latest age of slavery is the white
race's enslavement of the black race.
The black man will not forget this until
he has achieved rehabilitation.

This tragic and historic event, the
resulting bitter feeling, and the search
for satisfaction derived from rehabili-
tating a whole race, constitute a
psychological motivation in the move-
ment of the black race to vengeance
and domination, which cannot be disre-
garded. Added to that is the inevitabil-
ity of the social historical cycles in-
cluding the yellow race's domination of
the world when it marched from Asia
against the rest of the continents. Then
came the role of the white race, when it
carried out a wide-ranging colonialist
movement covering all the continents
of the world. Now comes the black
race's turn to prevail.

The black race is now in a very
backward social situation. But such

123

backwardness helps to bring about
numerical superiority of the blacks
because their low standard of living
has protected them from getting to
know the means and ways of birth
control and family planning. Also their
backward social traditions are a
reason why there is no limit to mar-
riage, leading to their unlimited
growth, while the population of other
races has decreased because of birth
control, restrictions on marriage and
continuous occupation in work, unlike
the blacks who are sluggish in a cli-
mate which is always hot.

124

EDUCATION

Education, or learning, is not neces-
sarily that methodized curriculum and
those classified subjects in text books
which youth are forced to learn during
specified hours while sitting on rows of
desks. This type of education, now
prevailing all over the world, is against
human freedom. Compulsory educa-
tion, of which countries of the world
boast whenever they are able to force
it on their youth, is one of the methods
which suppresses freedom. It is a com-
pulsory obliteration of a human being's
talents as well as a forcible direction of
a human being's choices. It is an act of
dictatorship damaging to freedom be-
cause it deprives man of free choice,
creativity and brilliance. To force a
human being to learn according to a
set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To
impose certain subjects upon people is
a dictatorial act.

Compulsory and methodized educa-
tion is in fact a forced stultificatiorrof
the masses. All countries which set
courses of education in terms of formal

125

curricula and force pupils to learn
them, coerce their citizens. All
methods of education prevailing in the
world should be done away with
through a worldwide cultural revolu-
tion to emancipate man's mind from
curricula of fanaticism and from the
process of deliberate adaptation of
man's taste, his ability to form con-
cepts and his mentality.

This does not mean that schools are
to be closed and that people should turn
their backs on education, as it may
seem to superficial readers. On the
contrary, it means that society should
provide all types of education, giving
people the chance to choose freely any
subjects they wish to learn. This re-
quires a sufficient number of schools
for all types of education. Insufficient
schools restrict man's freedom of
choice forcing him to learn the sub-
jects available, while depriving him of
natural right of choice because of the
lack of availability of other subjects.
Societies which ban and monopolize
knowledge are reactionary societies
biased towards ignorance and hostile
to freedom. Thus societies which pro-

126

hibit the teaching of religion as it
actually is, are reactionary societies,
biased towards ignorance and hostile
to freedom. Societies which monopol-
ize religious education are reactionary
societies; biased towards ignorance
and hostile to freedom. Equally reac-
tionary and biased towards ignorance
and hostile to freedom are the societies
which distort the religions, civiliza-
tions and behaviour of others in the
process of teaching those subjects.
Societies which consider materialistic
knowledge as taboo are reactionary
societies biased towards ignorance and
hostile to freedom. Knowledge is a
natural right of every human being
which nobody has the right to deprive
him of under any pretext except in a
case where a person himself does
something which deprives him of that
right.

Ignorance will come to an end when
everything is presented as it actually is
and when knowledge about everything
is available to each person in the
manner that suits him.

127

MELODIES AND ARTS

Man is still backward because heJi;
unable to speak one common language.
Until he attains this human aspiration,
which seems impossible, the express-
ion of joy and sorrow, what is good and
bad, beauty and ugliness, comfort and
misery, mortality and eternity, love
and hatred, the description of colours,
sentiments, tastes and moods — all
will be according to the language each
people speaks automatically. Be-
haviour itself will remain based on the
reaction produced by the feeling the
language creates in the speaker's
mind.

Learning one language, whatever it
may be, is not the solution for the time
being. It is a problem that will inevit-
ably remain without solution until the
process of the unification of languages
has passed through various genera-
tions and epochs, provided that the
hereditary factor comes to an end in
those generations through the passage
of enough time. For the sentiment,
taste and mood of the forefathers and

128

fathers form those of sons and grand-
sons. If those forefathers spoke various
languages and the grandsons speak
one language, the grandsons will not
necessarily share a common taste by
virtue of speaking one language. Such
a common taste can only be achieved
when the new language imparts the
taste and the sense which are transmit-
ted by inheritance from one generation
to another.

If a group of people wear white
clothes in mourning and another group
put on black ones, the sentiment of
each group will be adjusted according
to these two colours, i.e. one group
hates the black colour while the other
one likes it, and vice versa. Such a
sentiment leaves its physical effect on
the cells as well as on the genes in the
body. This adaptation will be transmit-
ted by inheritance. The inheritor auto-
matically hates the colour hated by the
legator as a result of inheriting the
sentiment of his legator. Consequently,
people are only harmonious with their
own arts and heritages. They are not
harmonious with the arts of others
because of heredity, even though those

129

people, who differ in heritage, speak
one common language.

Such a difference emerges between
the groups of one people even if it is on
a small scale.

To learn one language is not a prob-
lem and to understand others' arts as a
result of learning their language is also
not a problem. The problem is the
impossibility of a real intuitional adap-
tation to the language of others.

This will remain impossible until the
effect of heredity, which is transmitted
in the human body, comes to an end.

Mankind is really still backward be-
cause man does not speak with his
brother one common language which is
inherited and not learned. However, it
is only a matter of time for mankind to
achieve that goal unless civilization
should relapse.

SPORT, HORSEMANSHIP
AND SHOWS

Sport is either private, like the
prayer which man performs alone by
himself even inside a closed room, or
public, practised collectively in open
places, like the prayer which is prac-
tised collectively in places of worship.
The first type of sport concerns the
individual himself, while the second
type is of concern to all people. It must
be practised by all people and should
not be left to anybody to practise on
their behalf. It is unreasonable for
crowds to enter places of worship just
to view a person or a group of people
praying without taking part. It is
equally unreasonable for crowds to
enter playgrounds and arenas to watch
a player or a team without participat-
ing themselves.

Sport is like praying, eating, and the
feeling of warmth and coolness. It is
stupid for crowds to enter a restaurant
just to look at a person or a group of

130

131

persons eating; it is stupid for people
to let a person or a group of persons get
vvarmed or enjoy ventilation on their
oehalf. It is equally illogical for the
society to allow an individual or a team
to monopolize sports while the people
as a whole pay the costs of such a
monopoly for the benefit of one person
or a team, In the same way people
should not democratically allow an
individual or a group, whether party,
class, sect, tribe or parliament, to
replace them in deciding their destiny
and in defining their needs.

Private sport is of concern only to
those who practise it on their own and
at their own expense. Public sport is a
public need and the people should not
be represented in its practice either
physically or democratically. Physic
ally, the representative cannot trans
mit to others how his body and morale
benefited from sport. Democratically,
no individual or team has the right to
monopolize sport, power, wealth or
arms for themselves. Sporting clubs
are the basic organizational means of
traditional sport in the world today.
They get hold of all expenditures and

132

public facilities allocated to sport in
every state. These institutions are only
social monopolistic instruments like
all dictatorial political instruments
which monopolize authority, economic
instruments which monopolize wealth,
and traditional military instruments
which monopolize arms. As the era of
the masses does away with the instru-
ments monopolizing power, wealth and
arms, it will, inevitably, destroy the
monopoly of social activity such as
sports, horsemanship and so forth. The
masses who queue to vote for a candi-
date to represent them in deciding
their destiny act on the impossible
assumption that he will represent them
and embody, on their behalf, their
dignity, sovereignty and point of view.
However those masses, who are rob-
bed of their will and dignity, are re-
duced to mere spectators, watching
another person performing what they
should, naturally, be doing them-
selves.

The same holds true of the crowds
which fail to practise sport by them-
selves and for themselves because of
their ignorance. They are fooled by

133

monopolistic instruments which en-
deavour to stupefy them and divert
them to indulging in laughter and ap-
plause instead. Sport, as a social activ-
ity, must be for the masses, just as
power, wealth and arms should be in
the hands of the people.

Public sport is for all the masses. It
is a right of all the people for its health
and recreational benefits. It is mere
stupidity to leave its benefits to certain
individuals and teams who monopolize
them while the masses provide the
facilities and pay the expenses for the
establishment of public sports. The
thousands who crowd stadiums to
view, applaud and laugh are those
foolish people who have failed to carry
out the activity themselves. They line
up on the shelves of the sports grounds,
practising lethargy, and applauding
those heroes who wrest from them the
initiative, dominate the field and con-
trol the sport, exploiting the facilities
the masses provide. Originally, the
public grandstands were designed to
demarcate the masses from the play-
ing fields and grounds, i.e. to prevent
the masses from having access to the

playing fields. When the masses march
and play sport in the centre of the
playing fields and the open spaces,
stadiums will be vacated and des-
troyed. That will take place when the
masses become aware of the fact that
sport is a public activity which must be
practised rather than watched. The
opposite, which would be a helpless
apathetic minority that watch, would
be more reasonable.

The grandstand will disappear when
no one is there to occupy it. Those who
are unable to perform the roles of
heroism in life, who are ignorant of the
events of history, who fall short of
envisaging the future and who are not
serious enough in their lives, are the
trivial persons who fill the seats of the
theatres and cinemas to watch the
events of life and to learn their course.
They are like pupils who occupy school
desks because they are not only unedu-
cated but also illiterate.

Those who direct the course of life
for themselves do not need to watch it
working through actors on the stage or
in the cinemas. Likewise, horsemen
who hold the reins of their horses have

134

135

no seat in the grandstands at the race
course. If every person has a horse, no
one will be there to watch and applaud.
The sitting spectators are only those
who are too helpless to perform this
kind of activity because they are not
horsemen.

Equally, the bedouin peoples show
no interest in theatres and shows be-
cause they are very serious and hard
working. As they have created a se-
rious life, they ridicule acting. Bedouin
societies also do not watch performers,
but perform games and take part in
joyful ceremonies because they natu-
rally recognize the need for these acti-
vities and practise them automatic-
ally.

Different types of boxing and wrest-
ling are evidence that mankind has not
got rid of all savage behaviour. Inevit-
ably they will come to an end when
man ascends the ladder of civilization.
Human sacrifice and pistol duels were
familiar practices in different stages
of human evolution. However, those
savage practices came to an end years
ago. Man now laughs at himself and
regrets such acts. That will be the fate

136

of boxing and wrestling after tens or
hundreds of years. However, the more
the people are civilized and sophisti-
cated, the more they are able to ward
off both the performance and the en-
couragement of these practices.

137

The thinker Muammar Qathafi does not present his thought
for simple amusement or pleasure. Nor is it for those
who regard ideas as puzzles for the entertainment of empty-
minded people standing on the margin of life.

Qathafi's ideas interpret life as it erupts from the heart
of the tormented, the oppressed, the deprived and the grief-
stricken. It flows from the ever-developing and conflicting
reality in search of whatever is best and most beautiful.

Part One of The Gveen Book heralded the start of the era
of the Jamahiriyat (state of the masses) .
The Green Book, Part II concentrates on finding an ultimate
solution to the world's economic problems. For many years,
we have all been torn by conflicting kinds of theories, whether
of liberalism , communism or capitalism .

After directing his attention to purely political matters as he
did in Part I of The Green Book Colonel Muammar Al-
Qathafi, the Leader of the Great 1st of September Revolution,
now offers his conclusions on the way in which the world's
economic problems can be solved.

The author preaches the emancipation of servants in a
social revolution against need v hich has made them the serfs
of the twentieth century.

He emphasises the necessity for the partnership of all
workers in the mean?, of production, liberating them finally
from exploitation.

Part Three of The Green Book launches the social
revolution. It presents the genuine interpretation of history,
the solution of man's struggle in life and the unsolved problem
of man and woman. Equally it tackles the problem of the
minorities and the blacks in order to lay down the sound
principles of social life for all mankind.

The living philosophy is inseparable from life itself and
erupts from its essence. It is the philosophy of Muammar Qathafi.

— The Publisher